Re: [Fsf-Debian] No response?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 08/06/2012 07:49 PM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 03:50:23AM +, Clint Adams wrote: Do you understand how a sane and honest person might disagree with you given the preponderance of evidence? I agree and this is one of the criticism we need to address. But saying, in reply to this, see, we/you're lying is not enough to actually solve the issue. You're right, it doesn't solve the issue, it supplies visibility of the issues. A compliant has been made that the discussion can't go forward until all parties ascribe to Mr. Finney's Orwellian newspeak. I disagree. Its because we've fleshed out that disagreement that the anatomy of the problem is now this clear. At that point, I argue that those people should be free to do what they want with their time and Debian resources, no matter if the non-free bits merely happen to be *colocated* with the official free bits that form the Debian distribution. I trust the maintainers of nonfree would not in fact pack their bags, shut off the lights, and lock the doors if it were decided at the end of the day to move contrib and nonfree off site. I'm not sure the open use of Debian resources is the best way to go, but I don't think that is a show stopper in and of itself. I'm deeply ambivalent about colocation. I think it could be done in a way that works. But right now, if you http/ftp to the storage and drill down, its all there in gory detail. In Mr. Adams examples, the bug reports and sundry forms are already marked nonfree in an obvious way. I don't think plastering _more_ nonfree nomenclature on top of that is good enough either. Cutting and pasting FSF philosophy with every article of nonfree is inelegant. Why not take a copy of the Debian services framework (whichever services that might mean), reupholster it, and serve it up from a separate URL under a different name, exclusively for contrib and nonfree? That would take some effort up front, but then who really wants to troll through all the html or whatever and figure out how to put surgeon general warnings on everything? (And please, refrain from lightly smash this down with no, you should delete non-free/contrib from your servers. That is indeed the *alternative* solution, but for the sake of searching from common ground, we need to be creative and explore all the various possibilities.) Colocation could be done in such a way that the free and nonfree packages aren't part of the same structure. Which is to say I think one should have to navigate to a different URL, whether served by the same hardware or not, in order to browse the nonfree packages, bug reports, et al. Behind the scenes needs to mean completely behind the scenes, where the Debian nomenclature and anything nonfree never appear together on screen, whether the maintainers continue working transparently with each other or not. Maybe that didn't land as close as you might hope to your idea of ideal, but I trust it was neither light nor bashing. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQH6EIAAoJEM5s7GXJ0FEIHzEH/Rxs+AHI0ojBAlP+9CBNy6Tf vxdtBZAWTXOTG/dRt+Y0cbpwDw/3j38/0BipGFkHC2AzpXwcktn0iIsz0uNDJ7Yq 2smVXmo+zHa68qoV5NNZ92mSF3SvU9c/8A/FDp9roq7M0zq08LNQkVb7f1pLy6J6 aloqhW+WrV4djAclNJXCwzxAeX3qty87wvq99MGXAIFl24qBqyUeTsikidBJxwuv RiXHIStDJw7gZGvHiTomcG6qIcCI2DLS/DZVgeoV6N53NMKzhIx+94bHNLcwf/z4 juRse9b5okFNDA/dNzzcxpRriA4FpESsFevfNd3LFC6/SOxJ+hmKUFTVHQ/tyJU= =AU3w -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Fsf-collab-discuss mailing list Fsf-collab-discuss@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/fsf-collab-discuss
Re: [Fsf-Debian] No response?
On Mon, 6 Aug 2012, 18:22:07 EST, Paul van der Vlis p...@vandervlis.nl wrote: Op 06-08-12 00:22, Karl Goetz schreef: On Sun, 5 Aug 2012, 23:04:20 EST, Paul van der Vlis p...@vandervlis.nl mailto:p...@vandervlis.nl wrote: I think this is all possible, except the point about the mailing lists. In my opinion there should be freedom of speech on the lists. Aiui the problem is in promoting - or being seen to promote - proprietary software. 'Everyone' knowing about a repository wont count against a distro unless it gets promoted by official channels. When e.g. the DPL would be asked about the changes during an interview, he should have the freedom to explain it. In my opinion that's something else then promoting nonfree. Sorry, i think my brain dropped some context. What is 'it' in the paragraph above? When an DD answers a question about wifi in a mailinglist he should have the freedom to tell about nonfree.org. I don't mean something the existence of nonfree.org in documentation on the wiki. Not its currently against the requirements of free distos. At least for now, i think we should put this aside and look at other ways of collaborating. promote nonfree software, but not everybody has the money to buy hardware what runs with free firmware. At the moment, most cheap mainboards (95%?) are using a Realtek network chip what that claim seems unsubstantiated to me. Thanks, kk___ Fsf-collab-discuss mailing list Fsf-collab-discuss@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/fsf-collab-discuss
Re: [Fsf-Debian] No response?
Op 06-08-12 13:50, Karl Goetz schreef: perhaps nonfree.debian.(org|net) could be used. I don't think that's a good idea. Debian would still distribute nonfree software. With regards, Paul. -- Paul van der Vlis Linux systeembeheer, Groningen http://www.vandervlis.nl ___ Fsf-collab-discuss mailing list Fsf-collab-discuss@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/fsf-collab-discuss
Re: [Fsf-Debian] No response?
Bryan Baldwin br...@katofiad.co.nz writes: I understand that Debian has a fully functional fully free subset of the system. The fully functional, fully-free system is identical with Debian. This is because that is the *definition* of Debian, as defined by the Debian project in their founding documents. Those founding documents also state the existence of ‘contrib’ and ‘non-free’, which are outside Debian. Again, this is all in the founding documents published online; you don't need to ask Debian representatives to get this. I admire that Debian developers have gone to the effort required to make it functionally separate. I do not admire the lack of ownership over contrib/nonfree. The Debian project has ownership of the ‘contrib’ and ‘non-free’ sections of the archive. Those sections are not part of Debian, as defined by the Debian project. Clearly there is confusion over this, which is why we're having these discussions. But if you're saying that the Debian project's definition of Debian will be rejected as “lack of ownership” over the parts that are outside Debian, I don't see how constructive discussion can emerge. Having contrib and nonfree repositories is bad, but its not nearly as bad as refusing ownership over it and obfuscating its existence with purely tautological language. Can we now lay this allegation to rest? Who from the Debian project has refused ownership? Those sections, which are by definition outside Debian, are owned by the Debian project as stated in their founding documents. -- \ “Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because fiction is | `\ obliged to stick to possibilities, truth isn't.” —Mark Twain, | _o__) _Following the Equator_ | Ben Finney pgp0NMxcRY9Y5.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Fsf-collab-discuss mailing list Fsf-collab-discuss@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/fsf-collab-discuss
Re: [Fsf-Debian] No response?
Bryan Baldwin br...@katofiad.co.nz writes: Taking ownership means stating plainly and publicly that contrib and nonfree are part of Debian. That would be the lie. They are not part of Debian. Whether you mean the project, the system, the distribution, or any other possible subdivisions and classifications of Debian that you can think of. Since you're clearly intent on dismissing the Debian project's own definition of what Debian is, this thread of discussion is apparently fruitless. -- \ “I knew things were changing when my Fraternity Brothers threw | `\ a guy out of the house for mocking me because I'm gay.” | _o__) —postsecret.com, 2010-01-19 | Ben Finney pgpVj5wkb8bHB.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Fsf-collab-discuss mailing list Fsf-collab-discuss@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/fsf-collab-discuss
Re: [Fsf-Debian] No response?
On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 01:40:31PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote: That would be the lie. They are not part of Debian. http://bugs.debian.org/zangband http://packages.debian.org/zangband http://packages.qa.debian.org/z/zangband.html https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=zangband Do you understand how a sane and honest person might disagree with you given the preponderance of evidence? ___ Fsf-collab-discuss mailing list Fsf-collab-discuss@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/fsf-collab-discuss
Re: [Fsf-Debian] No response?
Clint Adams cl...@debian.org writes: On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 01:40:31PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote: [The Debian project claiming that ‘contrib’ and ‘non-free’ are part of Debian] would be the lie. They are not part of Debian. Do you understand how a sane and honest person might disagree with you given the preponderance of evidence? A sane and honest person could disagree if they were ignorant of the Debian project's social contract. Which does not apply to people participating in this thread, nor the Debian project members. There is a preponderance of evidence that the Debian project owns the ‘contrib’ and ‘non-free’ sections, which I've been saying and which the Debian project's social contract says clearly. This is entirely consistent with the fact that those sections are not part of Debian, by definition. It's also consistent with sane and honest people, ignorant of that definition, disagreeing. Which is why I'm asking us to get past that, because we're not ignorant of that definition and it's the only definition that matters for saying what is actually part of Debian. -- \ “It ain't so much the things we don't know that get us in | `\trouble. It's the things we know that ain't so.” —Artemus Ward | _o__) (1834–1867), U.S. journalist | Ben Finney ___ Fsf-collab-discuss mailing list Fsf-collab-discuss@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/fsf-collab-discuss
Re: [Fsf-Debian] No response?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 08/04/2012 08:12 AM, Paul Wise wrote: On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 11:38 AM, Paul van der Vlis wrote: I agree with the FSF when they say: Debian also provides a repository of nonfree software. I don't believe that putting the non-free software on a different set of infrastructure still maintained by Debian is meaningfully different to what we have now. Is there an opportunity to make the separation between what is and is not Debian even clearer, and to do it in a way that remains consistent with Debian's social contract? I think my idea would make it clearer. But not 100% sure it's worth the work. Maybe there are other things more important. Fundamentally, the issue seems to be about the clarity of the distinction between Debian (the 'main' section) and non-free/contrib. Do we have any opinion from RMS or other FSF folks about what amount of clarity is required before they would consider Debian a free distro? Until we have that there isn't much point discussing potential levels of separation. I agree. And it dances around the real issue. The point of separation of main from contrib/nonfree is moot. It doesn't matter whether Debian developers or maintainers work in both sectors or not. The only thing that really matters is what is in your literature, your documentation, and your repositories. Of course, people who really really cared about their freedom probably wouldn't want to work in both camps. It would be interesting to get a response directly from FSF _specifically for Debian_ to meet the free distribution requirements, but its terribly terribly redundant. FSF have *already* published their requirements in sufficient detail with which to begin work. Does anyone working on Debian really need a third party to give step-by-step plan to figure it out? Asking FSF to examine Debian to give you such a response is tantamount to saying, If you want us to be a free distribution, do our work for us. Being a free distribution is not mysterious, nor a moving target. Its all laid out rather unambiguously. Nonetheless, here is my take (not necessarily representative of FSF). * Remove all references to contrib/nonfree from *everything*. It should not appear in the comments of sources.list, or anywhere in the packages and documentation, or in Debian's websites and mailing lists. * No packages should require anything from contrib or nonfree to be installed (isn't this already true?). * No packages should reference, offer, or refer to any other nonfree software before, during, or after it is installed (even if it can be installed without the nonfree). * Replace all references like understanding that some users need nonfree with we are dedicated to identifying and removing all nonfree packages whenever discovered and as soon as they are discovered. It would also be helpful if Debian developers were frequently caught in the act of doing so, as well. Not just labelling nonfree as bugs and ignoring it for years. Thus, if I browse the Debian website, or download a Debian installer and install it, or join a Debian mailing list, I expect never to see, hear, or discover anything about any nonfree software or repository anywhere, unless it is in a blacklist explaining why it was removed/not included. Requests for support for nonfree should be denied without comments or references that point to where such support is available. As far as where contrib/nonfree should go, if there were no direct links from Debian's websites, mailing lists, documentation, packages, or software to them, that would be good enough for me. Wherever they end up going, Debian probably shouldn't be part of the title, either. Needless to say, I'm completely skeptical and incredulous. Here's why. Unless the majority of Debian's movers and shakers are happy with and excited about the prospect of doing all of the above, I don't think Debian will *ever* get to the point where its a fully free distribution. Plastering the website with 100% free notices doesn't mean anything and doesn't count. You have to *want* to be free to get free. If Debian really really wanted to be free, this discussion list wouldn't even exist. The devs would have simply gone out, done it, and filled out the application email for consideration by FSF like everyone else who's on that list already did. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQHPZWAAoJEM5s7GXJ0FEIIuAH+gIelA4gXrv9uCmv4zNFUb0X qzpLMbtmBhJ0Zf07kN21wl/++Lz3GH67H9b5Vbc6vnBoaanOgN/eIYTmZ8/Q2WyC xyxqZU3KDYeSh8Cr1viigFhazmgvLUfT1M6Uotkjqub1MDekly8BzYt8H2jMuJ6h ydAvY9VXVuV834lo3WF05cOOcOm3iP8cJDZpZT0Ns4NNhV+B1Vr9/fSYVcSX38zE 4mEupTyWVaZ6Hzj386HcLwSHUNxFdwHqvHFJxdXiXmDxvR6xRpXChiQQLrjKbvdC qkWDcn7iLjGikmc+KiKLXA/XR7h+5Yho8pMdHRHh0sFu18skd9W5gGcc6HrgAKw= =1NBk -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___
Re: [Fsf-Debian] No response?
Op 03-08-12 17:42, Ben Finney schreef: Paul van der Vlis p...@vandervlis.nl writes: In the statutes of the organization we could write that the organization will do what Debian decides. How would that organisation be meaningfully distinct from the Debian project, then? It would make it possible for Debian to remove the non-free and contrib section on a way where it is not a big problem for the users who want to use such software. I use e.g. firmware for my wlan from non-free. It's difficult to find a wlan chip with free firmware. And I use flashplugin-nonfree from contrib. I would really like it to find replacements, but at the moment I don't have them. With regards, Paul van der Vlis. -- Paul van der Vlis Linux systeembeheer, Groningen http://www.vandervlis.nl ___ Fsf-collab-discuss mailing list Fsf-collab-discuss@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/fsf-collab-discuss
Re: [Fsf-Debian] No response?
Op 03-08-12 22:12, Paul Wise schreef: I don't believe that putting the non-free software on a different set of infrastructure still maintained by Debian is meaningfully different to what we have now. Debian would still be providing non-free/contrib to our users and I imagine the FSF would still say Debian still has a repository of non-free software. The only difference would be the URL where the non-free bits are located, which (IMO) is not meaningfully different to what we have now. Hmm, I think there is a meaningful difference. And it's not only the URL what's different, but also the official owner of the URL. At the moment you can download closed source binaries from Debian. Fundamentally, the issue seems to be about the clarity of the distinction between Debian (the 'main' section) and non-free/contrib. Do we have any opinion from RMS or other FSF folks about what amount of clarity is required before they would consider Debian a free distro? Until we have that there isn't much point discussing potential levels of separation. For example if Fedora dropped all their non-free firmware and moved them to RPM Fusion (the repo of non-free bits for Fedora users), would that be enough for them to be added to the list of free distros? The non-free firmware would still be out there and still used by developers and users alike. Fedora does have a clear policy about what can be included in the distribution, and it seems to be followed carefully. The policy requires that most software and all fonts be available under a free license, but makes an exception for certain kinds of nonfree firmware. Unfortunately, the decision to allow that firmware in the policy keeps Fedora from meeting the free system distribution guidelines. http://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html In my opinion this says: when the nonfree firmware would go to something like rpmfusion, Fedora would be a free system. With regards, Paul van der Vlis. -- Paul van der Vlis Linux systeembeheer, Groningen http://www.vandervlis.nl ___ Fsf-collab-discuss mailing list Fsf-collab-discuss@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/fsf-collab-discuss
Re: [Fsf-Debian] No response?
Op 03-08-12 17:46, Daniel Kahn Gillmor schreef: Debian is already 100% free software. In Debian there is a contrib and a non-free section. This is officially not a part of Debian, but in reality it is (in my opinion). The Debian project says those sections are not part of Debian, explicitly in their foundational documents. Do we not allow the Debian project to say what is and is not part of Debian? So if Ubuntu declares that multiverse and restricted are not part of Ubuntu the FSF should take their word on it? [For this requirement, Ubuntu has other issues] I don't want to change that, but I want to move it away to another organisation. Okay. But can we at least agree to use the definition of “Debian” that the Debian project have given consistently from the beginning? What project or system is non-free a part of? Please see Why is this important? http://www.gnu.org/distros/ -Bryan ___ Fsf-collab-discuss mailing list Fsf-collab-discuss@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/fsf-collab-discuss
